KNIGHTSEN WETLAND RESTORATION AND FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT BASELINE SOILS EVALUATION AND HYDROLOGIC MONITORING June 2019 Prepared for: Environmental Science Associates AƩenƟon: Eve Pier Kieli and Mark Lindley 550 Kearny Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, California 94108 Prepared by:
150
Embed
KNIGHTSEN WETLAND RESTORATION AND FLOOD PROTECTION …
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
KNIGHTSEN WETLAND RESTORATION AND FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT
BASELINE SOILS EVALUATION AND HYDROLOGIC MONITORING
June 2019
Prepared for:
Environmental Science Associates
A en on: Eve Pier Kieli and Mark Lindley
550 Kearny Street, Suite 800
San Francisco, California 94108 Prepared by:
KNIGHTSEN WETLAND RESTORATION AND FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT BASELINE SOILS EVALUATION AND HYDROLOGIC MONITORING
Balance Hydrologics, Inc. i
June 19, 2019
A REPORT PREPARED FOR:
Environmental Science Associates Attention: Eve Pier Kieli and Mark Lindley
550 Kearny Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, California 94108
3.1 Surface Water Monitoring 10 3.2 Groundwater Monitoring 10 3.3 Soil Sampling 11 3.5 Surface Water Quality Sampling 12
4 FINDINGS 13
4.1 Hydrographs of Monitoring Data 13 4.2 Groundwater Contour Maps 13 4.3 Effects of Irrigation and Outflow Pumping 14 4.4 Influence of Tidal Cycle 16 4.5 Conditions at the North Parcel 16 4.6 Soil Results 17 4.7 Water Quality Results 18
5 CONCLUSIONS 20
6 LIMITATIONS 22
7 REFERENCES 24
KNIGHTSEN WETLAND RESTORATION AND FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT BASELINE SOILS EVALUATION AND HYDROLOGIC MONITORING
iv Balance Hydrologics, Inc.
LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Published properties of surficial soils
Table 2. Soil sample results summary
Table 3. Water quality results summary
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Site location and topography
Figure 2. Monitoring well and gage locations, topographic contours, and stormwater flow onsite
Figure 3. Local flooding in 1998
Figure 4. Annual rainfall record at Brentwood County Corporation Yard
Figure 5. Daily rainfall near the Knightsen Wetland Restoration and Flood Protection Project during monitoring period
Figure 6. Geology and monitoring well locations
Figure 7. Soils and sampling sites
Figure 8. Soil pH measurements
Figure 9. Soil specific conductance measurements
Figure 10. Surface-water elevations
Figure 11. Groundwater elevations
Figure 12. Groundwater elevations during period of no irrigation, late dry season 2017
Figure 13. Surface-water and groundwater elevations at east section of property
Figure 14. Surface-water and groundwater elevations at southeast section of property during dry season 2018
Figure 15. Surface-water and groundwater elevations at southeast section of property during wet season of water year 2019
Figure 16. Surface-water and groundwater elevations at the 80-acre northern parcel
Figure 17. Depth to groundwater
Figure 18. Groundwater elevations and contours, May 15, 2018
Figure 19. Groundwater elevations and contours, October 24, 2018
Figure 20. Groundwater elevations and contours, April 3, 2019
KNIGHTSEN WETLAND RESTORATION AND FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT BASELINE SOILS EVALUATION AND HYDROLOGIC MONITORING
Balance Hydrologics, Inc. v
APPENDICES Appendix A. Regional long-term rainfall totals
Appendix B. Monitoring well Logs
Appendix C. Site Observer Log
Appendix D. Laboratory Reports of Soil Samples
Appendix E. Laboratory Reports of Surface-Water Samples
< This page intentionally left blank >
KNIGHTSEN WETLAND RESTORATION AND FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT BASELINE SOILS EVALUATION AND HYDROLOGIC MONITORING
Balance Hydrologics, Inc. 1
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose
This report presents the results of our initial field studies for the Knightsen Wetland Restoration and Flood Protection Project, located in East Contra Costa County about 1.5 miles east of Knightsen, California (Figure 1). The 645-acre property lies within the Veale Tract, east of the lowermost reaches of Marsh Creek on the broad gently sloping valley plain forming the eastern part of Contra Costa County, and adjacent to existing slough channels along the western Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta. The property slopes down to reclaimed low-lying river-delta lands, and is currently farmed for vegetable crops, hay and range land, with limited seasonal wetland areas in the northeast. On the gently-sloping hummocky landscape, the site likely historically supported a mosaic of transitional habitats from oak savanna at the highest elevations of the southwest portion of the property to tidal freshwater wetland at low elevations in north and east portions of the property, with intervening pockets of alkali meadow, seasonal wetland complex, and dune habitat. The once natural, hummocky topography has since been uniformly graded with leveling of sand hills and filling of hollows across the property.
The property was acquired by East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy (ECCCHC) and East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD).1 The ECCCHC, in its role of implementing the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan, is in the process of restoring the site for habitat, flood control and conservation purposes. The restoration project is intended to address a number of needs, including:
• Restore a mosaic of wetland and upland habitats for special status species;
• Provide flood conveyance, storm-water detention, and water-qualityimprovements for runoff from the adjacent community of Knightsen; and
• Provide recreation and access to the Delta.
1 The land was purchased for $6.1 million, with the ECCCHC covering 90 percent of the purchase price, using state and federal land conservation grants. The remaining 10 percent was paid for by the EBRPD using funds from Measure WW, which was approved by voters in Alameda and Contra Costa counties in 2008 to help the park district preserve open space for recreation and wildlife habitat.
KNIGHTSEN WETLAND RESTORATION AND FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT BASELINE SOILS EVALUATION AND HYDROLOGIC MONITORING
2 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.
Balance Hydrologics (Balance) was subcontracted to Environmental Science Associates (ESA) to carry out a field investigation and initial baseline monitoring of soils, groundwater and surface water at the site for the purpose of restoration planning and design. This report summarizes the hydrologic setting, presents our field methods and preliminary findings of the monitoring program. We anticipate that the findings presented in this report will be used by ECCCHC staff and the site restoration design team to develop appropriate concepts for restoration.
1.2 Restoration Constraints
A Habitat Restoration Feasibility Study of the site (Olson and others, 2013) identified a number of habitat considerations, including the following soils and hydrology characteristics:
a) On-site historical habitats and restoration target habitats are generally related toelevation and soil alkalinity.
b) Alkaline habitats are characterized by having sodic soils. A limited sampling of theclay soils on site showed slightly saline conditions but not sodic or saline-sodic soilsand additional soil testing for sodic (alkali) properties was recommended.2 Despitethe lack of apparent sodic soils, vegetation typical of alkaline wetlands alreadyoccurs on site, indicating the soils have a potential to support alkali habitats.
c) While the higher elevations on site are suitable to support oak savanna, the poorlydrained clay soils that dominate the site and potential high groundwater may beconstraining. Sea level rise also poses a potential constraint to restoring oaksavanna.
d) Overall, the site is extremely well-suited for restoring tidal marsh but not without apotential for increased seepage and flood risk to neighboring properties. Anumber of concepts were proposed to manage this constraint.
2 Sodic soils have an alkaline pH (>8.5) and a high ratio of sodium cations to calcium and magnesium cations (sodium absorption ratio, SAR > 13-15), and tend to be poorly-drained dispersed clay soils. A sodic soil with higher specific conductance (SC > 4 dS/m) is referred to as a saline-sodic soil. Saline soils also have a higher specific conductance (SC > 4 dS/m), but with a pH < 8.5 and a SAR < 13-15 not considered sodic. Specific conductance of soils is usually reported as electrical conductivity (EC) by the lab.
KNIGHTSEN WETLAND RESTORATION AND FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT BASELINE SOILS EVALUATION AND HYDROLOGIC MONITORING
Balance Hydrologics, Inc. 3
e) A north to south powerline easement divides the site and would require coordination with utility companies to construct wetlands or hydrologic features within the easement.
f) Tidal slough water is available at No Name Slough along the south property line, east of the powerline easement. Water from No Name Slough is currently pumped onto the property for crop irrigation and distributed across the farm fields by gravity flow. Surface water, irrigation return flow, and shallow groundwater elevations are currently regulated by pumping water off the site at the southeast corner of the property to No Name Slough.
1.3 General Technical Approach and Work Conducted
Following an initial meeting and site visit on May 24, 2017 with Abby Fateman from East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, Mark Lindley and Eve Pier Kieli from ESA, Erin McDermott and Meghan Bishop from Nomad Ecology, and Mark Woyshner and David Shaw from Balance, we developed a soils sampling, stormwater sampling, and surface-water and groundwater monitoring program, which was included in the Knightsen Wetland Restoration and Flood Protection Project Assessments and Studies Plan (Pier Kieli and Lindley, 2017). Soil sampling was conducted on July 26, 2017, six stream gages and eight monitoring wells were installed on August 1, 2017, and stormwater was sampled on March 22, 2018 during a small late-season stormflow peak.
KNIGHTSEN WETLAND RESTORATION AND FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT BASELINE SOILS EVALUATION AND HYDROLOGIC MONITORING
4 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.
2 SETTING
2.1 Hydrography and Climate
The 645-acre project site is located at the downstream-most portion of a broader 10.6 square-mile drainage area (PWA, 2002). It ranges in elevation from 20 feet (NAVD 88) at the southwest corner of the property to elevation zero (0) at the northeast corners of the property (Olson and others, 2013) (Figure 1). The property is segmented into a number of agricultural blocks with Eagle Lane defining the southern boundary and Byron Highway the western boundary (Figure 2). Other property boundaries abut neighboring agricultural blocks, separated by shared irrigation and drainage ditches. Some of the drainage diches may potentially be lower than elevation zero. The property includes an 80-acre northern parcel, which is separated by Delta Road from the rest of the Nunn property.
Regionally, stormwater flows east along Delta Road and north along Byron Highway to a confluence at the intersection of these two roads, then continues to flow east along Delta Road to the northeast corner of the Nunn property, where the drainage ditch turns south and crosses the property just east of the powerline easement. At Eagle Lane, the ditch then turns east and flows to the southeast corner of the property, where water is pumped into No Name Slough (Figure 2). During highest stormflows, runoff can flow onto the southern parcel from Delta Road and possibly from Byron Highway, as seen in the oblique aerial photograph capturing local flooding in 1998 (Figure 3). The 80-acre northern parcel north of Delta Road has a somewhat natural hummocky topography with limited grading of historical sand dunes, so water ponds in shallow hollows during flooding events.
The climate of this portion of Contra Costa County is Mediterranean, similar to the San Francisco Bay Area and throughout the California coast region. Characterized by a warm dry season and a cool wet season, summer temperatures are somewhat higher here than those along the coast. Afternoon winds from the coast are common, and rainfall, although less than along the coast, is extremely variable year to year. Mean annual rainfall in the vicinity of the project site is approximately 12.5 inches per year, based long-term rainfall records collected since 1880 at the Brentwood County Corporation Yard (Appendix A). Figure 4 shows the long-term record of annual rainfall
KNIGHTSEN WETLAND RESTORATION AND FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT BASELINE SOILS EVALUATION AND HYDROLOGIC MONITORING
Balance Hydrologics, Inc. 5
relative to water year 2018, the period of monitoring data presented in this report.3 The project site lies between two County rain stations: a) the Brentwood County Corporation Yard station (BCO86), located about five miles southwest from the site, and b) the Ironhouse Sanitary District facility station (ISD39), about five miles northwest from the site. ISD39 has a period of record since WY2007 with a mean annual rainfall of 12.9 inches (Appendix A).
Total rainfall during WY2018 was 10.2 inches at BCO86, which was 82 percent of mean annual rainfall and classified as a “dry” year.4 At ISD39 it was 11.2 inches. The largest storm during WY2018 produced three inches of rain during January 9 and 10 (Figure 5). 1.8 inches of rain fell from April 6 through 8, 2018, and 0.9 inches on November 16 and 17, 2017. Other storms during WY2018 were notably smaller.
During WY2019 through April 2019, total rainfall was 14.0 inches at BCO86 and 14.9 inches at ISD39, which was above the annual average. Following a number of small storms during the early wet season totaling 3.4 inches through December, atmospheric-river conditions established in mid-season (Figure 5); 3.5 inches of rain fell during mid-January, 4.2 inches during the first part of February, and 1.5 inches during late February through early March. Flooding in California during this period prompted the governor to issue an emergency proclamation on February 21, proclaiming a “state of emergency” in 21 counties. We received word that flooding had occurred on the project site at that time. During late March, an additional 1.1 inches of rain fell from smaller storms, and April was mostly dry with occasional scattered light rain.
It is useful to also consider rainfall during the monitoring period relative to antecedent conditions. Rainfall during water year 2017 was 161 percent of mean (extremely wet), and one of the wettest years of record (similar to 1998), which likely moderated the below-normal conditions of water year 2018.
3 The term ‘water year 2018’ or WY2018 refers to the period from October 1, 2017 to September 30, 2018.
4 Water year type classification: Extremely Dry <70%; Dry 70‐90%; Average 90‐110%; Above Average 110‐125%; Wet 125‐160%; Extremely Wet >160%.
KNIGHTSEN WETLAND RESTORATION AND FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT BASELINE SOILS EVALUATION AND HYDROLOGIC MONITORING
6 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.
2.2 Geology
The surface geology at the project site and vicinity was mapped at the 15-minute scale (1:62,500) by Brabb and others (1971), and generally corresponds to soil types mapped by Carpenter and Crosby (1939), described below. Quaternary deposits of clay in the San Joaquin River delta system were mapped across most of the site and are associated with Sacramento Adobe Clay and Marcuse Clay soil series. At the southwest corner of the property, where ground-surface elevations are highest, Quaternary deposits of predominantly clay to a depth of at least five feet were mapped as “deposits between natural levee systems during flood conditions”. These deposits are associated with Rincon Clay soil series. Quaternary sand dune deposits (were mapped largely across the north parcel and associated Piper Fine Sandy Loam soil series.
Atwater (1982) later mapped surface geology at a 7.5-minute scale (1:24,000), providing more resolution primarily to the extents of sand dune deposits exposed at the property and vicinity (Figure 6). These windblown (eolian) deposits (Qm2e) were interpreted as an upper member of the Modesto formation (upper Pleistocene epoch), while the clay deposits across the property and vicinity (Qymc) were interpreted as younger alluvium of Marsh Creek and vicinity (Holocene and upper Pleistocene epoch). Sand dune fields were common along coastal California during the Pleistocene (e.g., upper Modesto formation, Aromas Sand, Merced formation) and were related to glaciation in the Sierra Nevada. These eolian sands of granitic rock origin are commonly 20 to 40 feet thick in the Antioch, Oakley, and Bradford Island area; with the youngest sand likely swept from glacial-age floodplains of the San Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers. With the relative rise in sea-level since the last glacial maxima, advancing tidewater into the Central Valley created extensive wetlands and tule marshes that covered most of the Delta and much of the sand dunes before agricultural reclamation. Peat and mud accumulation in tidal wetlands over the past 7,000 years overlie the alluvium and eolian sand in a vertical sequence of deposits recording a landward spread of the tidal environment (Atwater, 1982). Figure 6 shows the Atwater (1982) delineation of the landward margin of tidal wetland across the property prior to reclamation for agriculture (circa 1850). This delineation was used by Stanford (2011) as a basis to differentiate the historical extent of tidal wetland habitat and its boundary with alkali marsh habitat.
KNIGHTSEN WETLAND RESTORATION AND FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT BASELINE SOILS EVALUATION AND HYDROLOGIC MONITORING
Balance Hydrologics, Inc. 7
2.3 Soils
Two published maps describe the soils at the project site and the greater East Contra Costa County area (Figure 7):
1. Carpenter and Cosby (1939) produced a soils classification map at the 15-minute scale (1:62,500) and an accompanying document. In addition to detailing soil types across the property, this early soils survey also delineated areas of alkali-affected soils (areas with alkali concentrations above 0.2 percent). The interpreted historical extent of alkali-associated habitats (Stanford, 2011) were largely based on this delineation to establish the presence of a band of alkali as a transition zone between the upland oak savanna and the tidal marsh.
2. A more recent soil survey map and report (Welch and others, 1977) was developed to meet federal standards for resource management by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. At a 7.5-minute scale (1:24,000), it was subsequently used for internet-based soils data throughout the geographical area of the county. This soil survey was developed more quickly, often with remote-sensing support such as multi-band aerial photography. A summary of the published soil properties presented in Table 1 is mostly taken from this survey.
Soils of the project area and vicinity generally form bands related to elevation contours which parallel the low-lying delta soils. The bands of soil types (or series) cross the property from northwest to southeast. Most soils at the project site were mapped within the Carpenter and Cosby (1939) envelope of alkali-affected soils and comprise the Sacramento clay alkali soil, Marcuse clay moderately saline sodic soil, and Piper fine sandy loam and loamy sand soils. Other soils on site include Rincon clay loam, Marcuse sand, and Delhi sand.
The Sacramento clay alkali soil is located at the lowest elevations on site, at the north and east portions of the property, and historically supported tidal freshwater emergent wetland habitats. Formed in nearly-level mixed alluvial deposits, this soil series is adjacent to the organic soils (peat and muck soils) on the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. It is a stiff clay soil with an adobe structure and contains enough saline and alkali salts to limit crop selection. The soil is well supplied with organic matter, very poorly drained, mottled with iron stains below a depth of about nine inches, and generally has a shallow depth
KNIGHTSEN WETLAND RESTORATION AND FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT BASELINE SOILS EVALUATION AND HYDROLOGIC MONITORING
8 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.
to groundwater or perched groundwater. The soil is classified as hydrologic soil group D (soils that have very slow infiltration) and tends to easily pond storm water.
The Marcuse clay soils form an unbroken band across the center portion of the property, adjacent to the Sacramento clay alkali soil and at higher elevations. Formed in alluvium at the historical landward margin of tidal wetlands, it is a poorly drained heavy clay soil and classified as hydrologic soil group D (soils that have very slow infiltration). With less than two percent slopes, storm water is subject to ponding or runs off very slowly. The soil is classified as generally moderately saline and sodic and these areas likely supported a mosaic of tidal wetland and alkali marsh habitats.
Rincon clay loam soils are found adjacent to Marcuse clay soils at the southeast portion of the property where elevations are highest. Typically on benches, these deep soils formed in alluvium deposited between historical natural levee systems during flood conditions. The soil is generally an easily cultivated, slightly alkaline, moderately heavy clay loam, and classified as hydrologic soil group C (soils which have low infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted or have layers that impede infiltration). It generally lacks mottles, which suggest deeper groundwater relative to other soils on site, but it also has a well-developed, extremely hard, very firm and plastic B horizon at depth that would tend to inhibit percolation. This soil historically supported oak woodland/savanna habitat.
The Piper series is described by Welch (1977) as poorly drained soils formed on eolian ridges that have become more prominent as surrounding areas subsided. Its upper horizons (epipedon) of the representative profile (on Bethel Island) is a fine sandy loam. Mottling occurs in lower horizons. Piper series soils are classified as hydrologic soil group C (soils which have low infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted or have layers that impede infiltration). The soils are found at the north and east portions of the property and historically supported upland dune habitat.
A very small area of Delhi Sand is found on the property along Byron Highway, which like Piper soils, corresponds with Atwater (1982) mapped eolian deposits. The Delhi series is described by Welch (1977) as consisting of somewhat excessively drained soils and classified as hydrologic soil group A (soils which have high infiltration and low runoff potential). As with the Rincon series, this soil historically supported and oak woodland/savanna habitat.
KNIGHTSEN WETLAND RESTORATION AND FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT BASELINE SOILS EVALUATION AND HYDROLOGIC MONITORING
Balance Hydrologics, Inc. 9
A small area of Marcuse Sand is found along the south property line, which was previously classified as Zamora Loam by Carpenter and Cosby (1939). Similar to Marcuse clay soils, it is a moderately or strongly alkaline, poorly drained, deep soil with a well-developed, extremely hard, very firm and plastic B horizon. The soil is subject to ponding or water runs off very slowly. Historically this area likely supported upland dune or interdune with tidal freshwater emergent wetland habitat at lower elevations.
KNIGHTSEN WETLAND RESTORATION AND FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT BASELINE SOILS EVALUATION AND HYDROLOGIC MONITORING
10 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.
3 METHODS
3.1 Surface Water Monitoring
Six surface-water gages (shown in Figure 2) were installed for the purpose of recording the frequency, duration, and elevation of surface water on site:
1) The Inflow Gage was located at the northwest corner of the property in the ditch along Delta Road to measure stormwater inflows to the property;
2) The Center Gage was located in the ditch crossing the property south from Delta Road;
3) The Outflow Gage was located in the drainage ditch at the southeast corner of the property at the outflow pump station;
4) The East Property Line Gage was located in the ditch on the east property line, upstream of the outflow pump station;
5) The Slough Gage was located in No Name Slough near the outflow pump station; and,
6) The North Pond Gage was located in the largest hollow of the north parcel that ponds water north of Delta Road.
Each gage was sited at a pool and consisted of a) a USGS “Style C” staff plate to visually measure the water level (a.k.a., stage) and b) a PVC stilling well and water-level sensor/datalogger (Solinst Levelogger®) to make automated measurements of water level. The Leveloggers were programmed to record water level every 15 minutes. The elevation of each staff plate was surveyed by ESA, in addition to horizontal location. Visual readings of stage of were periodically taken and used to calibrate the levelogger record to elevation. Surface-water observations are compiled in site observer logs and presented as Appendix C.
3.2 Groundwater Monitoring
Eight monitoring wells were installed across the project site using a direct-push rig to a depth of 16 feet.5 The monitoring well sites are identified in Figures 2 and 6. A well drilling permit was required by the County for each monitoring well because the monitoring wells were completed at a depth greater than five feet. In addition, all monitoring wells
5 Woodward Drilling, located in Rio Vista, CA
KNIGHTSEN WETLAND RESTORATION AND FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT BASELINE SOILS EVALUATION AND HYDROLOGIC MONITORING
Balance Hydrologics, Inc. 11
installed required a County exemption for a seal depth less than 10 feet and an annulus less than 2-inches.
At each well site, continuous cores were collected, photographed, and the soil texture and color logged. The cores depict clay accumulation overlying alluvium and eolian sand in a vertical sequence of deposits recording a landward spread of a tidal environment as described in Section 2 (above). Coring was advanced to a depth of 16 feet at all sites except for 17-8 at the North Parcel, which was advanced to 12 feet owing to a shallower depth to the sand unit. A 1.25-inch diameter PVC casing was installed with a 5-foot screened section (0.020 inch slot size) placed at the bottom of the monitoring well, within a sand unit below the water table. The annulus was backfilled with a #3 sand filter pack at the screened section, and sealed with a bentonite plug and a neat cement grout tremie to ground surface. The monitoring wells were completed with a 3-foot stick up (approx.) and well cover above ground surface. The well cover was subsequently painted bright yellow. A geologic log and construction diagram for each monitoring well is presented in Appendix B.
Depth-to-water measurements were periodically measured by hand in all monitoring wells, and four of the monitoring wells (17-1, 17-2, 17-3, and 17-8) were instrumented with a water-level sensor datalogger (Solinst Levelogger®), programed to record water level every 60 minutes. The depth-to-water measurements were used to calibrate the levelogger record. As a reference for converting the depth-to-water measurements to elevation, the elevation of the top of each monitoring well was surveyed by ESA. Groundwater observations are compiled in site observer logs and presented as Appendix C.
3.3 Soil Sampling
Soil sampling was conducted as part of this baseline study because the existing studies and published mapping of soils do not provide information on the soil properties at a suitable resolution for restoration planning and design. The objective of the soil sampling was to characterize the surface soils across the site by taking field measurements of texture, Munsell color, slurry pH and specific conductance approximately every 500 feet along two transects (15 sampling sites in total). A GPS waypoint was taken at each site using a Garmin handheld GPS receiver. Sampling sites are shown in Figure 7.
At each site, a sample from the upper 1 foot of soil was collected for field measurements using a sharpshooter shovel. Additional samples down to a depth of 5 feet were
KNIGHTSEN WETLAND RESTORATION AND FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT BASELINE SOILS EVALUATION AND HYDROLOGIC MONITORING
12 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.
collected at two of the sites using a hand auger. The deeper sampling proved to be too laborious in the hard dry clay soil at the project site, and impossible at some sampling sites, thus very few samples were collected at depth. Collected samples were photographed and texture and color described, and then transported to Balance Hydrologics’ Berkeley soil lab for measurements of specific conductance and pH of the soil sample slurry.6 Soil sample descriptions, pH and specific conductance measurements are summarized in Table 2. Eight samples were sent to A & L Western Agricultural Laboratories in Modesto, California for a ‘complete’ soil analysis and a soil salinity analysis of each sample. The laboratory reports are found in Appendix D.
3.5 Surface Water Quality Sampling
We collected water-quality samples on March 22, 2018 during a small late-season storm totaling one inch during the course of three days of rain. Three sites were sampled using a DH-48 hand-held depth-integrating sampler: the Inflow Gage, the Outflow Gage, and the Slough Gage (see Figure 2). The samples were sent to McCampbell Analytical, a California State certified analytical laboratory located in Pittsburg, California. The samples were analyzed for general minerals, chlorinated herbicides, carbamates, diquat and paraquat, ammonia, turbidity, and metals. The laboratory reports are found in Appendix E. and summarized in Table 3.
6 pH and specific conductance of equal volumes of dry soil and distilled water were measured at Balance Hydrologics lab/equipment room in Berkeley, CA using a YSI pH meter calibrated with buffered solutions pH 4, 7, and 10 and a YSI 30 specific conductance and temperature meter.
KNIGHTSEN WETLAND RESTORATION AND FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT BASELINE SOILS EVALUATION AND HYDROLOGIC MONITORING
Balance Hydrologics, Inc. 13
4 FINDINGS
4.1 Hydrographs of Monitoring Data
Surface water and groundwater elevations were monitored during the period July 2017 to April 2019 and are presented as hydrographs in Figures 10 through 16. As a hydraulic reference, the figures also show data at the No Name Slough Gage, which reflects the tidal cycle pattern. The groundwater elevation data show effects from outflow pumping and tidal cycles, and also show flow potential or gradients which help to interpret the direction and rate of groundwater flow. Surface-water elevation data show the occurrence of surface water whether from rainfall or irrigation, and outflow pumping cycles. Surface water and groundwater elevation data are illustrated in the following sets of hydrographs:
• Surface-water elevations at all six gaging stations are shown in Figure 10, and groundwater elevations at all eight monitoring wells are shown in Figure 11. Groundwater elevations at all eight monitoring wells are also detailed for November and December of 2017 in Figure 12 to illustrate an extended period of no irrigation and no rainfall.
• Surface-water and groundwater elevations are grouped for the east section of the property (east of the powerline easement) in Figure 13. Elevations in the southeast corner of the property (near the outflow pump station and No Name Slough) are detailed in Figure 14 for dry season 2018, and in Figure 15 for the subsequent wet season of water year 2019.
• Surface-water and groundwater elevations are grouped for the north parcel, north of Delta Road, in Figure 16.
Groundwater data at the eight monitoring wells are also illustrated as a depth to water from ground surface (Figure 17), which is important for habitat type, plant selection, and restoration and topographic design.
4.2 Groundwater Contour Maps
Groundwater contours are lines on a map joining points of equal groundwater elevation interpolated from monitoring well data. Groundwater contour maps were developed for three site visits when water levels at all eight monitoring wells were measured. During intervening times, dataloggers measured water levels in Wells 17-1, 17-2, 17-3, and 17-8.
KNIGHTSEN WETLAND RESTORATION AND FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT BASELINE SOILS EVALUATION AND HYDROLOGIC MONITORING
14 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.
• Figure 18 shows groundwater contours on May 15, 2018 following the wet season of a “dry” rainfall year and at the onset of an irrigation cycle,
• Figure 19 shows groundwater contours on October 24, 2018 at the end of the dry season, also at the onset of an irrigation cycle, and
• Figure 20 shows groundwater contours on April 3 2019 following the wet season of an above average rainfall year prior to any irrigation.
All three maps show a northeastward groundwater gradient of 0.002 across the property. During periods no rainfall and no irrigation groundwater elevations tend to be marginally higher at Well 17-1, showing a localized northerly gradient on site from No Name Slough, as seen in Figure 20. Several of the hydrographs (such as Figures 11 and 12) show periods when groundwater elevation at Well 17-1 is higher than at Well 17-3 and this gradient exists.7
Though groundwater elevations generally follow topographic elevations, surface water and groundwater flows behave differently. The overall surface-water flow is influenced by irrigation and drainage ditches and pumping, while the regional groundwater gradient (and flow) in the sand lenses is to the northeast. In addition, the clay soils overlying the sand lenses have the ability to perch surface water, with limited transmission to shallow groundwater, and shallow groundwater in the sand lenses may be simi-confined in areas with deep, continuous clay soils.
4.3 Effects of Irrigation and Outflow Pumping
Water from No Name Slough is pumped onto the property for row-crop irrigation. The irrigation floods agricultural field blocks and the return flow drains by gravity to the Outflow Gage located at the southeast corner of the property, where it is pumped off the site to No Name Slough. The water level at the Outflow Gage fluctuates from a regular pumping cycle from an elevation high of about 0.6 feet (NAVD88) to a low just below elevation zero (Figure 10). The slough elevation fluctuates from tides between 2 feet and 7 feet elevation (NAVD88).
7 Clarifying note: Groundwater elevations at Well 17-1 are always higher than at Well 17-2 because Well 17-2 is at lower topography and downgradient. Whereas, Wells 17-1 and 17-3 are at similar topographic elevations.
KNIGHTSEN WETLAND RESTORATION AND FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT BASELINE SOILS EVALUATION AND HYDROLOGIC MONITORING
Balance Hydrologics, Inc. 15
We did not collect irrigation notes or schedules from the farm manager or crews, but an irrigation cycle during the dry season can clearly be interpreted in the hydrographs. Water at the Center Gage and at the East Property Line Gage fluctuated from field-block irrigation during the dry season from a high elevation of about 2.5 feet, and drained down to as low as elevation zero (Figure 10). A regular cycle of about 2 weeks of irrigation when water levels were high and about a 4-week recession to a base level was recorded at the East Property Line Gage and in Wells 17-1, 17-2 and 17-3 (Figure 11). The Center Gage was also influenced by off-site runoff onto the property, which was recorded at the Inflow Gage. Though groundwater rose with recharge from irrigation, the groundwater gradient across the site remained to the northeast (discussed in Section 4.2 above) – with possible local high groundwater at the southeast corner of the property from groundwater flow from the slough during periods of no irrigation and no rainfall.
The cycle of irrigation runoff and water-table recharge is detailed in Figure 14. There were brief periods of no pumping during an irrigation cycle when water level rose at the Outflow Gage about a foot, causing water to back up at the East Property Line Gage and groundwater at Well 17-1 to rise about 4 to 6 inches. At the end of the irrigation cycle, outflow pumping was less frequent but still required to depress water levels at the Outflow Gage. During an extended period of no irrigation and rainfall (November and December of 2017), pumping at the Outflow Gage was required about one pumping cycle per day (Figure 12). These results indicate the necessity for continued pumping at the Outflow Gage to depress groundwater level during the dry season.
If pumping were discontinued during the dry season, it is unclear to what elevation groundwater would rise. The recorded depth to groundwater from the ground surface was shallowest at Well 17-1 and at Well 17-6. Well 17-1 was instrumented with a datalogger and has a continuous record, whereas Well 17-6 does not. Groundwater was at most about 4 feet below the ground surface at Well 17-1, and even deeper at Wells 17-2 and 17-3, (Figure 17). Even if groundwater were to rise to the elevation of water in the slough at these locations, it would likely still be below the ground surface during the dry season.8 In addition, mottled soils were observed in cores of soils collected at these well locations up to a depth of 4 to 5 feet (Appendix B), suggesting that the upper limit
8 Depth to groundwater during the dry season was about twice the elevation difference of the groundwater to the bottom of the tidal cycle in the slough (Figure 11).
KNIGHTSEN WETLAND RESTORATION AND FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT BASELINE SOILS EVALUATION AND HYDROLOGIC MONITORING
16 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.
of groundwater at these locations was well below the ground surface during historical conditions.9
Without pumping at the Outflow Gage during the wet-season, surface water would accumulate at the southeast corner of the property where the runoff channel terminates, and groundwater would rise to inundate the ground surface in this area. The highest wet-season groundwater elevations were observed during water year 2019 storm peaks, when inflows exceeded pumping at the Outflow Gage (Figure 15). The water level at the Outflow Gage and groundwater at Wells 17-1 and 17-3 approached elevation 4 feet, similar low tide elevations in the slough (Figures 11 and 15), and the depth to groundwater in Well 17-1 approached zero (Figure 17).
4.4 Influence of Tidal Cycle
Two separate cycles are interpreted in hydrographs: a) the tidal cycle as recorded at the Slough Gage, and b) surface-water outflow pumping cycle as recorded at the Outflow Gage. The tidal cycle apparent in the Slough Gage record is also detected at Well 17-1, which is the monitoring well closest to the slough. At distance from the slough, tidal cycles are less apparent to negligible, with limited or no tidal cycles seen in the record at Wells 17-2 and 17-3. Influences of pumping are possibly detected in the water level record at Well 17-8, but with limited to negligible effects. (Figure 12).
4.5 Conditions at the North Parcel
Topographic relief within the North Parcel is on the order of 7 feet (between elevations 2 and 9 feet, NAVD88), with a relatively intact dune complex present in the center and northwestern portion of the parcel. The western portion of this dune complex generally has less prominent ridge features than found in the center of parcel, with a maximum elevation of 8 feet and adjacent low-lying areas at elevations of approximately 4 to 5 feet. The largest low-lying interdune area is found in the eastern portion of the parcel, which separates the prominent dune ridge in the center of the parcel from an off-site smaller dune feature north of the parcel. Existing electric transmission line and gas
9 Mottling in soils refers to secondary soil colors not associated with compositional properties. Mottling associated with wetness is related to redox conditions, while other types of mottling are associated with the weathering of parent materials. In soil science, mottles are described by quantity, size, contrast, color, and (if important) other attributes such as moisture state, abruptness of their boundary shape, and location.
KNIGHTSEN WETLAND RESTORATION AND FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT BASELINE SOILS EVALUATION AND HYDROLOGIC MONITORING
Balance Hydrologics, Inc. 17
pipeline easements are considered to constrain restoration activities in the east portion of the parcel.
Soil coring at well site 17-8, located in a low lying area of the east portion of the parcel, showed primarily sandy loam to a depth of 5 feet, underlain by dune sand. We established a surface-water gaging station and monitoring well at this site. Ponding during WY2018 was brief and ephemeral, and to a maximum depth 0.5 feet (Figure 16). Ponding during WY2019 was up to 1.5 feet deep and persisted during periods of steady rain but evaporated and percolated to groundwater relatively quickly. The groundwater elevation at Well 17-8 responded rapidly to rainfall and ponding (Figure 16). The depth to groundwater was notably deeper than at the other wells, ranging from a depth of 7.5 feet during October 2017 to a depth of 2 feet during February 2018 peak rainfall (Figure 17). These findings illustrate an active groundwater recharge function at the North Parcel, potentially linked to a broad shallow aquifer within the dune complex, and likely connected to the sand zone identified at depth at the other well sites. The effect of domestic well pumping was not identified in the Well 17-8 hydrograph (Figure 16).
A Preliminary Draft Dune and Interdune Restoration Concepts for the North Parcel identified three restoration alternatives (Shaw and Woyshner, 2019).
4.6 Soil Results
Moderately alkaline surface-soil conditions (pH 7 to 8.5) were measured across the site (Figure 8), with lowest values found in the Marcuse sand sample A1, in the Rincon clay loam sample B4, and in sample site C1 consisting of both Sacramento clay and Piper sand. Published soil survey data show strongly alkaline conditions (pH > 8.5) at depth (Tables 1 and 2), which is what we also found with our limited depth sampling. Sodic soils have an alkaline pH and a high sodium absorption ratio (SAR > 13 to 15), and tend to be poorly-drained dispersed clay soils. With the exception of the very low SAR values at Marcuse sand sampled A1, the SAR of the surface-soil samples sent to the lab ranged from 2.1 to 10.3, indicating non-sodic soils or possibly some soils with near or mildly sodic conditions. The non-sodic soil conditions are also seen in the abundance of calcium and magnesium percent saturation relative to sodium saturation (Appendix D).
KNIGHTSEN WETLAND RESTORATION AND FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT BASELINE SOILS EVALUATION AND HYDROLOGIC MONITORING
18 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.
Similar findings were also shown in the specific conductance (SC) measurements (Figure 9 and Table 2).10 A soil with high specific conductance (SC > 4 mS/cm) is referred to as a saline soil, or saline-sodic soil if also a sodic soil. Published soil survey data (Table 1) indicate potential saline conditions onsite. However, the SC of the soil samples ranged from 0.4 to 4.8 mS/cm, indicating non-saline soils or possibly some soils with near or mildly saline conditions. It seems reasonable that salinity and SAR values of surface soils on site may have been altered somewhat from once higher values by decades of irrigation.
4.7 Water Quality Results
Water-quality results of the stormwater samples collected at the Inflow Gage, the Outflow Gage, and the Slough Gage on March 22, 2018 are summarized in Table 3. Chlorinated herbicides, carbamates, diquat and paraquat were not detected at the three samples. Metal (CAM17) results were either not detected or detected at a low concentration relative to the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for drinking water.11 The following notable general mineral results were found:
• Boron is a naturally-occurring element which is not toxic to humans or other vertebrates, but can adversely affect sensitive plant species at concentrations above 0.75 mg/L. In general, complex plant species are more sensitive to boron, and irrigation guidelines have identified severe crop dependent problems at values exceeding 2.0 mg/L. The concentration of boron measured at the Slough Gage was 2.3 mg/L, and 6.3 mg/L at the Outflow Gage, while the concentration was 0.64 at the Inflow Gage.
• Other major ions in the stormwater sampled showed a similar trend of low or generally background concentrations at the Inflow Gage (which receives off-site stormwater), higher concentrations at the Slough gage, and highest concentrations at the Outflow Gage, often 10 times or more the concentration measured at the Inflow Gage, and exceeding MCLs. For example, chloride (generally considered to be a conservative tracer) was 45 mg/L at the Inflow Gage, 290 mg/L at the Slough Gage, and 450 mg/L at the Outflow Gage. The
10 Specific conductance (SC) units: mmhos/cm = mS/cm = dS/m, standardized to 25 degrees Celsius. Specific conductance of soils is usually reported as electrical conductivity (EC) by the lab. 11 California Administrative Manual, known as California Code of Regulations, CAM 17 refers to a list of heavy metals identified in the manual – Antimony, Arsenic, Barium, Beryllium, Cadmium, Chromium, Cobalt, Copper, Lead, Mercury, Molybdenum, Nickel, Selenium, Silver, Thallium, Vanadium, Zinc.
KNIGHTSEN WETLAND RESTORATION AND FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT BASELINE SOILS EVALUATION AND HYDROLOGIC MONITORING
Balance Hydrologics, Inc. 19
concentration of minerals at the Outflow Gage is likely related to the application of slough water on site during the previous irrigation season. Minerals would tend to accumulate in the surface soils during the dry season, and then subsequently flush to the Outflow Gage during the wet season. In addition, the inherent salinity and SAR values of the surface soils on site appear to have been altered from once higher values by decades of irrigation (discussed in Section 4.6 above).
• Potassium, phosphate, and ammonia were found to be at higher concentrations at the Inflow Gage, suggesting off-site source(s) of nutrients. Additional stormwater sampling could help identify sources of nutrients, whether from septic leach fields, fertilizer applications, or horse/livestock waste. A sampling plan would include the analysis of MBAS (detergents), fecal coliform (generally originating in the intestines of warm-blooded animals), Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN), ammonia (NH3), nitrate (NO3), nitrite (NO2), N-15 and O-18 isotopes (identification of tropic level), and major ions (Piper diagram ion balance plot).
KNIGHTSEN WETLAND RESTORATION AND FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT BASELINE SOILS EVALUATION AND HYDROLOGIC MONITORING
20 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.
5 CONCLUSIONS
We installed eight monitoring wells to measure on-site groundwater elevations and six stream gages to measure surface-water elevations. Elevations were monitored from August 2017 to April 2019 using water-level recording dataloggers. Total rainfall during water year 2018 was about 10.8 inches at the site, an estimated 82 percent of mean annual rainfall, and characterized as a “dry” year. Antecedent rainfall, prior to the monitoring period during water year 2017, was 161 percent of mean, an extremely wet year, which likely moderated the below-normal conditions of water year 2018. Subsequent rainfall during water year 2019 was above normal and included atmospheric-river storms, causing ponding and flooding on site, which peaked during February 2019.
The water-surface elevation of No Name Slough provides a hydraulic reference for restoration design of the project property south of Delta Road. During the monitoring period, stormwater and irrigation return water on site flowed to the Outflow Gage, which was regulated by pumping to No Name Slough. Surface water at the Center Gage, Outflow Gage, and East Property Line Gage were all perennial and at a lower elevation than the water surface at the Slough Gage, while surface water at the Inflow Gage in the Delta Road ditch was intermittent. Without pumping at the Outflow Gage during the wet-season, surface water would accumulate at the southeast corner of the property where the runoff channel terminates. The depth to groundwater in that area would rise to ground surface (or higher). These conditions were observed during water year 2019 storm peaks, when inflows exceeded pumping at the Outflow Gage.
Groundwater contour maps show a 0.002 northeastward groundwater gradient. During periods of no rainfall and no irrigation groundwater elevations tend to be marginally higher near the slough, suggesting possible local high groundwater at the southeast-most corner of the property due to subsurface flow from the slough. The tidal cycle of the slough was also detected in the monitoring well records to a mostly a negligible degree, with the greatest tidal response of approximately 0.2 feet noted in groundwater closest to the slough. If pumping were discontinued during the dry season, it is unclear to what elevation groundwater would rise. Groundwater monitoring data and soil mottling depths suggest that the water table would likely not rise to the ground surface and may potentially be semi-confined in areas with deep clay soils.
KNIGHTSEN WETLAND RESTORATION AND FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT BASELINE SOILS EVALUATION AND HYDROLOGIC MONITORING
Balance Hydrologics, Inc. 21
Depth to groundwater across the property generally ranged from 3 to 6 feet below the ground surface with recharge peaks of a foot or more associated with rainfall in the wet season and irrigation in the dry season. Depth to groundwater in the southeastern-most portion of the property rose to within 1 foot of the ground surface several times during the February 2019 peak rains when inflows exceeded pumping at the Outflow Gage.
Depth to groundwater was deepest at North Parcel, ranging between 7.5 feet and 2 feet below ground surface. Ponding at the North Parcel generally persisted while there was rain, but evaporated and percolated to groundwater relatively quickly after rain stopped. With primarily sandy loam soils underlain by dune sand, low lying areas at the North Parcel actively recharge groundwater, potentially to a broad aquifer within the dune complex, and likely connected to the sand zone identified at depth at the other well sites.
Moderately alkaline surface-soil conditions (pH 7 to 8.5) were measured across the site with generally non-sodic and non-saline soils, or possibly limited pockets of near or mildly sodic and/or saline conditions. Strongly alkaline soil conditions (pH > 8.5) were found at depth, and likely sodic conditions as well. Measure pH results on site are generally in line with published soil survey data going back to the 1930’s. Salinity and SAR values of surface soils on site, however, may have been altered somewhat from once higher values by decades of irrigated farming practices.
The water-quality of surface waters on site was sampled on March 22, 2018 during a small late-season storm totaling one inch over three days. Results suggest a flushing of minerals from on-site farm fields, which were likely retained in surface soils from slough-water irrigation during the previous dry season. Dissolved solid concentrations in the stormwater sampled at the Outflow Gage were as much as 10 times or more the concentrations measured at the Inflow Gage, and exceeding maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for drinking water. Boron, though not toxic to humans or other vertebrates, was measured on site at concentrations exceeding levels known to cause severe crop problems, and was likely introduced from irrigation with slough water. Off-site source(s) of nutrients were indicated by concentrations detected at the Inflow Gage. Chlorinated herbicides, carbamates, diquat and paraquat were not detected.
KNIGHTSEN WETLAND RESTORATION AND FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT BASELINE SOILS EVALUATION AND HYDROLOGIC MONITORING
22 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.
6 LIMITATIONS
This report was prepared in general accordance with the accepted standard of practice in surface-water and groundwater hydrology existing in Northern California for projects of similar scale at the time the investigations were performed. No other warranties, expressed or implied, are made.
As is customary, we note that readers should recognize that interpretation and evaluation of subsurface conditions and physical factors affecting the hydrologic context of any site is a difficult and inexact art. Judgments leading to conclusions and recommendations are generally made with an incomplete knowledge of the conditions present. More extensive or extended studies, including additional hydrologic baseline monitoring, can reduce the inherent uncertainties associated with such studies. We note, in particular, that many factors affect local and regional ground-water levels. If the client wishes to further reduce the uncertainty beyond the level associated with this study, Balance should be notified for additional consultation.
We have used standard environmental information such as rainfall, topographic mapping, and soil mapping in our analyses and approaches without verification or modification, in conformance with local custom. New information or changes in regulatory guidance could influence the plans or recommendations, perhaps fundamentally. As updated information becomes available, the interpretations and recommendations contained in this report may warrant change. To aid in revisions, we ask that readers or reviewers advise us of new plans, conditions, or data of which they are aware.
Concepts, findings and interpretations contained in this report are intended for the exclusive use of Environmental Science Associates and the Eastern Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, under the conditions presently prevailing except where noted otherwise. Their use beyond the boundaries of the site could lead to environmental or structural damage, and/or to noncompliance with water-quality policies, regulations or permits. Data developed or used in this report were collected and interpreted solely for developing an understanding of the hydrologic context at the site as an aid to conceptual planning and channel and wetland restoration design. They should not be used for other purposes without great care, updating, review of sampling and analytical methods used, and consultation with Balance staff familiar with the site. In particular, Balance Hydrologics, Inc. should be consulted prior to applying the contents of this report
KNIGHTSEN WETLAND RESTORATION AND FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT BASELINE SOILS EVALUATION AND HYDROLOGIC MONITORING
Balance Hydrologics, Inc. 23
to geotechnical or facility design, routine wetland management, sale or exchange of land, or for other purposes not specifically cited in this report.
Finally, we ask once again that readers who have additional pertinent information, who observed changed conditions, or who may note material errors should contact us with their findings at the earliest possible date, so that timely changes may be made.
KNIGHTSEN WETLAND RESTORATION AND FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT BASELINE SOILS EVALUATION AND HYDROLOGIC MONITORING
24 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.
7 REFERENCES
Atwater, B.F., 1982, Geologic maps of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-1401, scale 1:24,000, 21 sheets, 15 p. pamphlet.
Brabb, E.E., Sonneman, H.S., and Switzer Jr., J.R., 1971, Preliminary geologic map of the Mount Diablo-Bryon area, Contra Costa, Alameda, and San Joaquin counties, California: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 71-53, prepared in cooperation with the Department of Housing and Urban Development, scale 1:62500, 2 sheets.
Carpenter, E.J. and Cosby, S.W., 1939, Soil survey of the Contra Costa County, California: United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Chemistry and Soils, in cooperation with the University of California Agricultural Experiment Station, series 1933, no. 26, issued May 1939, 83 p., scale 1:62,500, 1 sheet.
Olson, J, Lindley, M., and Haltiner, J., 2013, Knightsen habitat restoration feasibility study: Environmental Science Associates (ESA) Philip Williams and Associates (PWA) memorandum to East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, January 28, 2013, 11 p. + figures and appendices.
Philip Williams & Associates (PWA), 2002, Knightsen water quality wetland feasibility assessment: Prepared for Contra Costa County Public Works Department, November 26, 2002, PWA Ref. No. 1565, 37 p. + figures and appendices. (authors not identified in document)
Pier Kieli, E. and Lindley, M., 2017, Knightsen wetland restoration and flood protection project - assessments and studies plan: Environmental Science Associates (ESA) memorandum to Abigail Fateman, East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, August 18, 2017, 12 p. + table and figures.
Shaw, D., and Woysher, M., 2019, Preliminary draft dune and interdune restoration concepts, Knightsen Wetland and Flood Protection Project, Eastern Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy: A Balance Hydrolgics memorandum to Eve Pier Kieli and Mark Lindley, ESA Associates, March 28, 2919, 3 p. + figure.
Stanford, B., Grossinger, R. M., Askevold, R. A., Whipple, A., Leidy, R. A., Beller, E. E., Salomon, M. N., Striplen, C. J., 2011, East Contra Costa historical ecology study: San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) Contribution No. 648, November, 2011, 118 p.
Welch, L.E, Maurer, D.K., Landers, C., Nazar, P.G., and Gaston, W.A., 1977, Soil survey of the Contra Costa County, California: United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with the University of California Agricultural Experiment Station, issued September 1977, 122 p., 30 plates.
TABLES
Table 1. Published properties of surficial soils, Knightsen Wetland Restoration and Flood Protection Project, East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, CA
Map Symbol
Soil Series1 Parent Material Taxonomy Hydrologic Soil Group
Depth Zone
USDA Texture USCS2 Atterberg Limits
Permeability Available Water
Capacity3
Reaction Salinity Remarks
(USDA 1977) (USDA 1977) (order, suborder, family) (inches) Liquid Plastic (inches/hour) Per Inch Profile (pH) (dS/m @ 25C)(in./in. of soil) (total, in)
Alfisols 0 to 12 Clay loam CL 30-40 15-20 0.2 to 0.6 0.17 to 0.19 2.2 6.1 to 7.8 < 2
Xeralfs 12 to 29 Clay CL 35-45 20-25 0.06 to 0.2 0.14 to 0.17 2.6 6.6 to 8.4 < 2
29 to 65 Silty clay loam CL 25-35 10-20 0.2 to 0.6 0.15 to 0.17 5.8 7.9 to 8.4 < 2
>65 Alluvium -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Vertisols 0 to 20 Sand SP-SM NP NP 6.0 to 20 0.04 to 0.06 1.0 6.1 to 7.3 --
Aquerts 20 to 60 Clay CL 40-50 25-35 0.06 to 0.2 0.08 to 0.12 4.0 7.9 to 9.0 > 16
>60 Alluvium -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Vertisols 0 to 60 Clay CL 40-50 25-35 0.06 to 0.2 0.08 to 0.12 6.0 7.9 to 9.0 > 16
Aquerts >60 Alluvium -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Vertisols 0 to 60 Clay CH 60-70 30-40 0.06 to 0.2 0.14 to 0.15 9.0 6.1 to 8.4 < 8
Aquerts >60 Clay -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Entisols 0 to 60 Sand and loamy sand
SM-SP NP NP 6.0 to 20 0.05 to 0.07 3.6 6.1 to 8.4 < 4
Aquents >60 Alluvium -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Notes
4) NP = nonplastic
Ma Marcuse sand (analogous to Zl Zamora loam of Carpenter and Cosby, 1939)
Deep, very poorly drained soils, formed in alluvium derived from sandstone and shale of nearly level flood plains and basin rims.
A small area at south property line likely supporting upland dune or interdune with tidal freshwater emergent wetland historical habitat.
D (very slow infiltration, very high runoff)
Fine, smectitic, thermic Sodic Endoaquerts
1) Information taken from the USDA soil survey for the area (1977 and 1939). This soil survey generally does not distinguish areas smaller than about 20 to 40 acres.2) USCS = Unified Soils Classification System, commonly used in geotechnical or soil-foundation investigations, and in routine engineering geologic logging.3) Available Water Capacity = Held water available for use by most plants, usually defined as the difference between the amount of soil water at field capacity (one day of drainage after a rain or recharge event) and the amount at the wilting point.
Ph and Pe Very deep, poorly drained soils formed in eolian deposits of upper member of the Modesto Formation, Mokelumne and Stanislaus River alluvium from granitic rock sources.
C (slow infiltration, high runoff potential)
Located at the north and east portions of the property supporting upland dune historical habitat. Soils have a calcareous solum.Coarse-loamy, mixed,
calcareous, thermic Aeric Haplaquents
Piper fine sandy loam and Piper loamy sand (analogous to Pf Piper fine sandy loam of Carpenter and Cosby, 1939)
Located broadly across center of property suppoting alkali seasonal wetland complex and tidal freshwater emergent wetland histoical habitats. Formerly classified as Cheernozem Solonchak soils.
Sb Sacramento clay, alkali (analogous to Sa Sacramento adobe clay of Carpenter and Cosby, 1939)
Very deep, poorly drained soils formed in fine textured alluvium of mixed origin of nearly level flooded basin floors.
D (very slow infiltration, very high runoff)
Located at the north and east portions of the property supporting tidal freshwater emergent wetland historical habitat.Fine, smectitic, thermic
Xeric Endoaquerts
Mb Deep, very poorly drained soils, formed in alluvium derived from sandstone and shale of nearly level flood plains and basin rims.
D (very slow infiltration, very high runoff)
Fine, smectitic, thermic Sodic Endoaquerts
Marcuse clay (analogous to Mc Marcuse clay of Carpenter and Cosby, 1939)
RbA Deep, well drained soils formed in alluvium derived from sandstone and shale of older alluvial fans and stream terraces of Marsh Creek and vicinity.
C (slow infiltration, high runoff potential)
Located at southwest portion of the property primarily supporting oak woodland/savanna historical habitat. Soil generally lack mottles.
Rincon clay loam (analogous to Rl Rincon clay loam of Carpenter and Cosby, 1939) Fine, smectitic, thermic
Sa 0 to 1 -- -- -- Sacramento adobe clay -- 6.6 -- -- -- --
Sa 1 to 3.75 -- -- -- Sacramento adobe clay -- 6.8 -- -- -- --
Sa 3.75 to 6 -- -- -- Sacramento adobe clay -- 8.6 -- -- -- --
Notes:
2. Samples send to A&L Western Agricultural Laboratories in Modesto for soil salinity and soil extraction analyses.3. Specific conductance (SC) units: mmhos/cm = mS/cm = dS/m, standardized to 25 degrees Celsius. SC is usually reported by the lab as electrical conductivity (EC).4. Sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) is a measure of the amount of sodium (Na) relative to calcium (Ca) and magnesium (Mg) in the water extract from saturated soil paste. It is the ratio of the Na concentration divided by the square root of one-half of the Ca + Mg concentration. Soils that have SAR values of 13 or more may be characterized by an increased dispersion of organic matter and clay particles, reduced saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) and aeration, and a general degradation of soil structure. SAR = Na+ / 0.5(Ca2+ + Mg2+)0.5
Table 2. Soil sample results summary, Knightsen Wetland Restoration and Flood Protection Project, East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, CA.
1. pH and specific conductance of equal volumes of dry soil and distilled water measured at Balance Hydrologics using a YSI pH meter calibrated with buffered solutions pH 4, 7, and 10 and a YSI 30 specific conductance and temperature meter.
5. Carpenter, E.J. and Cosby, S.W., 1939, Soil survey of the Contra Costa County, California: United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Chemistry and Soils, in cooperation with the University of California Agricultural Experiment Station, series 1933, no. 26, issued May 1939, 83 p., scale 1:62,500, 1 sheet.
DESCRIPTORSSample I.D. Inflow Gage Outflow Gage Slough GageLatitude (NAD83, State Plane Zone 3) deg min sec 37°58'7.88" N 37°57'18.46" N 37°57'16.73" NLongitude (NAD83, State Plane Zone 3) deg min sec 121°38'4.86"W 121°37'12.48"W 121°37'12.44"WGage Height (arbitrary datum) feet 10.36 5.30 3.65Water surface elevation (NAVD 88, Geoid 12b) feet 4.02 0.73 4.09Lab used McCampbell McCampbell McCampbellLab number 1803D39-001C 1803D39-002C 1803D39-003CSample collected by [1] gp gp gp
FIELD MEASUREMENTSDate MM/DD/YY 3/22/2018 3/22/2018 3/22/2018Time HH:MM 14:00 17:00 17:45Specific conductance (@ 25°C) umhos/cm 389 3320 not measuredConductance (@ field temp) umhos/cm 334 2870 not measuredTemperature deg C 17.5 17.9 not measured
AnionsBromide mg/L E300.1 0.089 1.4 0.78Chloride mg/L E300.1 250/500 45 450 290Fluoride [4] mg/L E300.1 1 to 2.4 0.11 0.38 0.41Nitrate & Nitrite as N mg/L E300.1 10 2.3 8.7 18Nitrate as N mg/L E300.1 10 2.3 8.4 18Nitrate as NO3¯ mg/L E300.1 45 10 37 81Nitrite as N mg/L E300.1 1 0.097 0.31 0.16Nitrite as NO2¯ mg/L E300.1 0.32 1.0 0.52ortho-Phosphate as P mg/L E300.1 1.1 0.2 0.061ortho-Phosphate as PO4 mg/L E300.1 3.4 0.61 0.19Sulfate mg/L E300.1 250/500 51 790 210
Water quality results summary, Knightsen Wetland Restoration and Flood Protection Project site, East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, California.
NOTES1. Observer key: gp = Gustavo Porras (Balance Hydrologics)2. MCL = California Title 22 Maximum Contaminant Level as listed by California Administrative Code, Title 22.3. MCL for flouride is 1 to 2.4 mg/L and temperature dependent4. There is no MCL for boron. Irrigation guidelines for boron have identified increasing problems at values greater than 0.5 mg/L and severe problems at values exceeding 2.0 mg/L (crop dependent).
Figure 1. Site location and topography, Knightsen Wetland Restoration and Flood Protection Project, East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, CA. Basemap: USGS Quads Brentwood, Calif. 1978; Woodward Island, Calif. 1978. Contour interval: 5 feet NGVD29.
Figure 2. Monitoring well and gage locations, topographic contours, and stormwater flow onsite, Knightsen Wetland Restoration and Flood Protection Project, East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, CA. Irrigation is pumped from No Name Slough into ditches along the south property boundary and distributed onto row crops acrossthe site. Return flow is pumped from the Outflow Gage to No Name Slough. 5-ft contours taken from USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle. On-site 1-ft contours based on NOAA LIDAR data. Photo base: Google Earth. Imagery date: 6/28/2018.
Figure 3. Local flooding in 1998, Knightsen Wetland Restoration and Flood Protection Project, East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, CA. Stormwater is shown to pond at low elevations, primarily in the north and east portions of the property. Photo source: East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy
Figure 4. Annual rainfall record at Brentwood County Corporation Yard, Contra Costa County, CA. Years of partial or missing data not shown: 1885-1886, 1890-1891, 1900-1960, 2001-2003. WY2019 totaled through April.Data Source: Contra Costa County Public Works. Most hydrologic and geomorphic monitoring occurs for a period defined as a water year, which begins on October 1 and ends on September 30 of the named year. For example, WY2018 began on October 1, 2017, and concluded on September 30, 2018.
Figure 5. Daily rainfall near the Knightsen Wetland Restoration and Flood Protection Project during monitoring period, East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, CA. Data Source: Contra Costa County Public Works, average of stations ISD39 and BCO86.
Figure 6. Geology and monitoring well locations, Knightsen Wetland Restoration and Flood Protection Project, East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, CA. Geology source: Atwater, 1982, Geologic maps of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California: USGS Miscellaneous Field Studies Map 1401, 5-ft contour interval. Photo base: Google Earth. Imagery date: 4/2/2018.
N4000 ft20000
Rock Slough
Nunn property boundaryNo‐Name Slough
Geology LegendQymc : Younger alluvium of Marsh Creek and vicinity
(Holocene and upper Pleistocene)Qm2e : Eolian deposits of upper member of the Modesto Formation
(upper Pleistocene)
Landward margin of tidal wetlandat low river stages circa 1850
Figure 7. Soils and sampling sites, Knightsen Wetland Restoration and Flood Protection Project, East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, CA. Selected samples sent to A&L Western Agricultural Labs in Modesto for soil salinity and soil extraction analyses. Base map: Carpenter, E.J., and Cosby, S.W., 1939, Soil Survey Contra Costa County, USDA Series 1933, No. 26. SoilWeb delineations (yellow lines): Welch, L.E., 1977, Soil Survey of Contra Costa County, USDA SCS. Alkali-affected soils boundary (red line on base map) divides historical oak savanna and alkali seasonal wetland habitats on site.
Figure 8. Soil pH measurements, Knightsen Wetland Restoration and Flood Protection Project, East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, CA. Upper foot of soil sampled; results at depth are shown for some samples. See Figure 7 for sample ID. Base map: Carpenter, E.J., and Cosby, S.W., 1939, Soil Survey Contra Costa County, USDA Series 1933, No. 26.SoilWeb delineations (yellow lines): Welch, L.E., 1977, Soil Survey of Contra Costa County, USDA SCS. Alkali affected soils boundary (red line on base map) divides historical oak savanna and alkali seasonal wetland habitats on site.
Figure 9. Soil specific conductance measurements, Knightsen Wetland Restoration and Flood Protection Project, East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, CA. Upper foot sampled and depth results for some samples. See Figure 7 for sample ID. Base map: Carpenter, E.J., and Cosby, S.W., 1939, Soil Survey Contra Costa County, USDA Series 1933, No. 26. SoilWeb delineations (yellow lines): Welch, L.E., 1977, Soil Survey of Contra Costa County, USDA SCS.Alkali affected soils boundary (red line on base map) divides historical oak savanna and alkali seasonal wetland habitats on site.
Figure 10. Surface-water elevations, Knightsen Wetland Restoration and Flood Protection Project, East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, California. Note: Water surface elevations at the Center Gage, Outflow Gage, and East Property Line Gage are lower than water surface elevations at the Slough Gage, reflecting the importance of pumping operations in maintaining water levels at the site. The hydrographs depict late dry-season irrigation andwet-season runoff.
Slough gage responding to tidal cycle
Center gage and East PL gage respondingto irrigation cycles during dry seasong
Rainfall‐runoff response
Outflow gage responding to pumpingCumulative rainfall
Figure 11. Groundwater elevations, Knightsen Wetland Restoration and Flood Protection Project, East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, CA. Groundwater elevations generally follow topographic elevations (see contour maps in Figures 18, 19, and 20). Groundwater elevations at Well 17-6 resembled slough water elevations, located in the center of the property near the Atwater (1982) delineation of the landward margin of tidal wetland (circa 1850). Groundwater elevations at 17-4 and 17-5 were higher than the slough, located at a topographic high in historical oak savanna habitat, while groundwater elevations at 17-7 and 17-8 were lower than the slough, located at a topographic low in tidal wetland habitat.
Slough tidal cycle
17‐2
Cumulative rainfall
17‐3
17‐7
17‐8
17‐4
17‐5
17‐6
17‐8
Irrigation‐rechargeRainfall‐recharge
Wet Season 2019Wet Season 2018
17‐1
Monitoring wells installed on8/1/17. Data gap at well 17‐8 from 5/9/18 to 10/24/18 caused by damage from cattle.
Figure 12. Groundwater elevations during period of no irrigation, late dry season 2017, Knightsen Wetland Restoration and Flood Protection Project, East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, CA. Groundwater elevations generally follow topographic elevations (see contour maps in Figures 18, 19, and 20), but are locally lower near the Outflow Station from pumping. Tidal cycles apparent in the slough are also detected at 17-1, which is the monitoring well closest to the slough. At distance from the slough, tidal cycles are less apparent to negligible, as seen at 17-2, 17-3, and 17-8.
Figure 13. Surface-water and groundwater elevations at east section of property, Knightsen Wetland Restoration and Flood Protection Project, East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, CA. The regional groundwater gradient is northeastward and responds to irrigation, rainfall, and the tidal cycle of the slough.
Figure 14. Surface-water and groundwater elevations at southeast section of property during dry season 2018, Knightsen Wetland Restoration and Flood Protection Project, East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, CA. Groundwater elevations and irrigation return flows rise in response to irrigation, then recede from pumping at the Outflow Station. Tidal cycles apparent in the slough are also detected at 17-1, which is the well closest to the slough, and much less so at 17-2 and 17-3.
Figure 15. Surface-water and groundwater elevations at southeast section of property during wet season of water year 2019, Knightsen Wetland Restoration and Flood Protection Project, East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, CA. Surface-water and groundwater elevations approach the slough elevation during periods of rainfall and when inflows exceeded the pumping rate.
Figure 16. Surface-water and groundwater elevations at 80-acre northern parcel, Knightsen Wetland Restoration and Flood Protection Project, East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, CA. Data gap at well 17-8 from 5/9/18 to 10/24/18 caused by damage to monitoring well from cattle.
Figure 17. Depth to groundwater, Knightsen Wetland Restoration and Flood Protection Project, East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, CA. Depth to water generally ranged from near surface to over 7 ft with recharge peaks commonly rising 1 to 2 feet. Piezometers installed August 1, 2017. Data gap at well 17-8 from 5/9/18 to 10/24/18 caused by damage to monitoring well from cattle.
Figure 18. Groundwater elevations and contours, May 15, 2018,Knightsen Wetland Restoration and Flood Protection Project, East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, CA.
Figure 19. Groundwater elevations and contours, October 24, 2018,Knightsen Wetland Restoration and Flood Protection Project, East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, CA.
Figure 20. Groundwater elevations and contours, April 3, 2019,Knightsen Wetland Restoration and Flood Protection Project, East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, CA.
PDT 7/18/17 10:30 gp, ko dry dry dry Installed staff plate on t-post, 1-inch stilling well with datalogger (Levelogger F15 Edge, sn: 2032486; BSN 2738)
PDT 7/31/17 8:00 gp dry dry dry Monitoring well drilling dayPDT 10/25/17 11:33 gp dry dry dry no yes no No evidence of ponding.PDT 5/15/18 11:50 gp dry dry dry no yes no No evidence of ponding. Cows present. Staff plate was bent upon
arrival and restored to vertical.PDT 7/11/18 12:00 mn no Location of gage was surveyed by ESAPDT 10/24/18 12:30 gp dry dry dry no yes yes No cows present. New staff plate (same range) was installed;
additional fencepost was installed to protect gage. Ground level is at 13.50 in staff plate. Datalogger was relaunched at 11:30 PST
PDT 4/3/19 12:12 gp dry dry dry no yes no Levelogger demobbed at 12:15. Ground level is at 13.75 in staff plate.
Inflow GageLatitude: 37°58'7.88" N
Longitude: 121°38'4.86" WStaff plate range (feet): 10.00 to 13.33
datalogger10.00 in staff plate is at sediment level.PDT 7/31/17 8:30 gp 10.00 3.56 dryPDT 10/25/17 12:00 gp 10.00 3.56 dry no yes No evidence of recent flows. Installed datalogger today
(Levelogger F15 Edge, sn: 2069250; BSN 3171)PDT 3/22/18 11:47 gp 10.36 3.92 16.2 303 365 y (14:00) ~11.3 3/21/18 no no Q est~ 20-25 gpm; SCT YSI_30-50ft. SN02D1075ABPDT 3/22/18 13:39 gp 10.35 3.91PDT 3/22/18 14:10 gp 10.36 3.92 17.5 334 389 no Q est~ 20-25 gpmPDT 5/15/18 13:00 gp 10.10 3.66 dry no yes 12:15 PST Sediment accumulated to 10.10 in staff platePDT 7/11/18 12:00 mn no Location of gage was surveyed by ESAPDT 10/24/18 14:08 gp dry dry dry no yes no DryPDT 4/3/19 13:08 gp 10.22 3.78 15.8 1436 1738 no yes no Levelogger demobbed at 13:13
High-Water MarksSite Conditions Water Quality Observations Datalogger
Appendix C. Hydrologic monitoring observations at surface-water stations, Knightsen Wetland Restoration and Flood Protection Project, East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, California
(PST/PDT) (mm/dd/yr) (see notes) (feet) (feet) ( o C) (µmhos/cm) (at 25 oC) (see notes) (feet) (mm/dd/yr) (Y/N) (Y/N/Time)
High-Water MarksSite Conditions Water Quality Observations Datalogger
Appendix C. Hydrologic monitoring observations at surface-water stations, Knightsen Wetland Restoration and Flood Protection Project, East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, California
Center GageLatitude: 37°57'55.45" N
Longitude: 121°37'38.03" WStaff plate range (feet): 10.00 to 16.66
Reference elevation (gage height 0.00 ft): -11.06 feet, NAVD88PDT 7/18/17 10:20 gp, ko 13.20 2.14 24.2 1056 1074 --- Installed staff plates on 2x4 8-feet long with 1-inch stilling well with
datalogger (Levelogger F15Junior, sn: 1044511; BSN 2159); keyed into channel bottom and attached to 5-foot culvert with plumber's tape; flowing south
PDT 7/31/17 12:00 gp 13.46 2.40PDT 10/25/17 13:11 gp 13.15 2.09 18.8 390 443 no no 12:30 PST Pumping water out of channel. Was not able to communicate with
datalogger. PDT 5/15/18 14:24 gp 12.52 1.46 23.7 817 835 no yes no Replaced datalogger (Levelogger F15 Edge, sn: 2069290; BSN
3189)PDT 7/11/18 12:00 mn no Location of gage was surveyed by ESAPDT 10/24/18 15:05 gp 13.54 2.48 17.6 1015 1175 no yes yes Water is reddish/brown. Relaunched at 14:30 PSTPDT 4/3/19 14:33 gp 12.41 1.35 15.8 1154 1397 no yes no Levelogger demobbed at 14:36
East Property Line GageLatitude: 37°57'19.38" N
Longitude: 121°37'11.92" WStaff plate range (feet): 6.66 to 9.99
Reference elevation (gage height 0.00 ft): -6.83 feet, NAVD88 (East DITCH GAGE2) 8.2' staff reading = 1.37 feet elevationPDT 7/18/17 10:57 gp, ko 8.35 1.52 22.8 1403 1462 --- Installed staff plate on t-post, 1-inch stilling well with datalogger
(Levelogger F15 Edge, sn: 2020011; BSN 2425; minimal or no flow, lots of algae
PDT 7/31/17 10:38 gp 7.91 1.08PDT 10/25/17 16:14 gp 7.90 1.07 20.2 5680 6330 no yes noPDT 5/15/18 17:06 gp 8.89 2.06 24.2 1680 1708 no yes noPDT 7/11/18 12:00 mn no Location of gage was surveyed by ESAPDT 10/24/18 17:01 gp 8.25 1.42 14.6 1204 1499 no yes yes Relaunched at 16:00 PSTPDT 4/3/19 16:10 gp 8.41 1.58 14.2 2019 2547 no yes no Levelogger demobbed at 16:10
(PST/PDT) (mm/dd/yr) (see notes) (feet) (feet) ( o C) (µmhos/cm) (at 25 oC) (see notes) (feet) (mm/dd/yr) (Y/N) (Y/N/Time)
High-Water MarksSite Conditions Water Quality Observations Datalogger
Appendix C. Hydrologic monitoring observations at surface-water stations, Knightsen Wetland Restoration and Flood Protection Project, East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, California
Outflow GageLatitude: 37°57'18.46" N
Longitude: 121°37'12.48" WStaff plate range (feet): 0.00 to 9.99
keyed into channel bottom and attached to pump walkway, datalogger (Levelogger F15 Edge, sn: 2034204; BSN 2620) and barologger (Levelogger F15 Edge, sn: 2070065; BSN 3154); pumping water out to slough
PDT 7/31/17 9:58 gp 4.97 0.40PDT 10/25/17 17:00 gp 5.12 0.55 21.4 478 512 yes no Not relaunched.PDT 3/22/18 16:47 gp 5.30 0.73PDT 3/22/18 17:18 gp 5.30 0.73 17.9 2870 3321 y (17:00) no noPDT 5/15/18 16:01 gp 4.76 0.19 noPDT 5/15/18 17:28 gp 4.68 0.11 21.7 1720 1731 no yes noPDT 7/11/18 12:00 mn no Location of gage was surveyed by ESAPDT 10/24/18 17:47 gp 5.07 0.50 17.9 943 1090 no yes yes Relaunched at 17:15 PSTPDT 4/3/19 16:24 gp 4.90 0.33 18.5 3221 3662 no yes no Levelogger demobbed at 16:50
Slough GageLatitude: 37°57'16.73" N
Longitude: 121°37'12.44" WStaff plate range (feet): 0.00 to 9.99
Reference elevation (gage height 0.00 ft): 0.44 feet, NAVD88 (SLGH GAGE) 9.2' staff reading = 9.64 feet elevationPDT 7/18/17 13:27 gp, ko 4.15 4.59 27.4 795 774 --- Installed staff plates on 2x4 10 feet long with 1-inch stilling well
keyed into channel bottom and attached to 1-foot diameter pipe; datalogger (Levelogger F15 Edge, sn: 2032229; BSN 3157); water pumping out to slough through pipe.
PDT 7/31/17 9:35 gp 3.05 3.49PDT 10/25/17 16:31 gp 3.58 4.02 20.5 453 496 yes noPDT 3/22/18 17:21 gp 3.65 4.09 y (17:45) no no Water quality samples collected at pump station 987 feet East of
Slough gage. Vertical integration of water quality samples: 4-5 feet
PDT 5/15/18 16:42 gp 3.78 4.22 23.7 1087 1114 no yes noPDT 7/11/18 12:00 mn no Location of gage was surveyed by ESAPDT 10/24/18 17:30 gp 5.17 5.61 18.4 629 718 no yes yes Relaunched at 16:45 PSTPDT 4/3/19 16:27 gp 5.82 6.26 18.2 1562 1795 no yes no Levelogger demobbed at 16:35
Notes:1) gp = Gustavo Porras; ko = Kestrel Owens; mn = Matt Norcott (ESA)2) NR is not recorded3) NA or "-" is not applicable4) Abbreviations: SCT = specific conductance and temperature; DL = datalogger; PT = pressure transducer; HWM = high water mark
Total depth of well from ground surface (feet): 16.00
PDT 8/1/17 11:54 gg 8.93 5.69 0.33 Well completed and datalogger (Levelogger F15 Edge, sn: 2069244; BSN 3174) installed. Depth to datalogger from RP = 18.24 feet
PDT 10/25/17 14:45 gp 8.41 5.17 0.85 22.8 15120 15680 20.2 10970 12020 no yes noPDT 5/15/18 16:20 gp 6.98 3.74 2.28 19.9 14079 15567 18.1 12931 14851 no yes no Water in channel next to well: [email protected]; 1277@ 25oCPDT 10/24/18 15:48 gp 7.06 3.82 2.20 21.2 14631 15766 19.7 13636 15230 no yes yes Relaunched at 15:00 PSTPDT 4/3/19 15:07 gp 7.47 4.23 1.79 15.2 12660 15505 17.2 12615 14828 no yes no Levelogger demobbed at 15:07
Appendix C. Hydrologic monitoring observations at monitoring wells, Knightsen Wetland Restoration and Flood Protection Project, East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, CA
(PST/PDT) (mm/dd/yr) (see notes) (feet) (feet) (ft amsl) ( o C) (µmhos/cm) (at 25 o C) ( o C) (µmhos/cm) (at 25 o C) (see notes) (Y/N) (Y/N/Time)
Appendix C. Hydrologic monitoring observations at monitoring wells, Knightsen Wetland Restoration and Flood Protection Project, East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, CA
Water Level Water Quality Observations Datalogger
Dow
nloa
ded?
Rel
aunc
hed?
Bottom of water columnTop of water column
Monitoring Well 17-4Latitude: 37°57'22.00" N
Longitude: 121°38'11.01" WReference point elevation (ft NAVD88): 15.50
(PST/PDT) (mm/dd/yr) (see notes) (feet) (feet) (ft amsl) ( o C) (µmhos/cm) (at 25 o C) ( o C) (µmhos/cm) (at 25 o C) (see notes) (Y/N) (Y/N/Time)
Appendix C. Hydrologic monitoring observations at monitoring wells, Knightsen Wetland Restoration and Flood Protection Project, East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, CA
Water Level Water Quality Observations Datalogger
Dow
nloa
ded?
Rel
aunc
hed?
Bottom of water columnTop of water column
Monitoring Well 17-7Latitude: 37°57'50.53" N
Longitude: 121°37'25.37" WReference point elevation (ft NAVD88): 6.71
Total depth of well from ground surface (feet): 12.00
PDT 8/1/17 10:00 gg 8.80 6.60 -4.04 Well completed and datalogger (Levelogger F15 Edge, sn: 2069291; BSN 3175) installed. Depth to datalogger from RP = 14.00 feet
PDT 10/25/17 11:15 gp 9.47 7.27 -4.71 20.8 15960 17270 20.1 10190 11230 no yes noPDT 5/15/18 12:18 gp * 5.57 -3.57 29.7 120 107 18.3 4150 4687 no yes no Stick up was pushed over from well, likely by cows.
Levelogger was dangling near GS upon arrival. Lowered back down after download and well was left covered by concrete base of stickup (see photos).
PDT 10/24/18 13:28 gp 6.17 6.42 -3.86 21.5 13050 13982 21.2 4460 4802 no yes yes Levelogger (sn 2025668) was installed at 11 feet below RP. Well top was covered with cap and well stickup was left covering well (see photos).
PDT 4/3/19 12:33 gp 3.09 7.42 -0.78 15.4 1184 1442 15.4 9715 11791 no yes no Levelogger demobbed at 12:33
Notes:1) gp = Gustavo Porras; gg = German Galvez (Woodward)2) NR is not recorded3) NA or "-" is not applicable4) Abbreviations: SCT = specific conductance and temperature; DL = datalogger; PT = pressure transducer;
C1803D39-001 Water 3/22/2018 14:00217004 INFLOW A D B F G EC1803D39-002 Water 3/22/2018 17:00217004 OUTFLOW A D B F G EC1803D39-003 Water 3/22/2018 17:45217004 SLOUGH A D B F G E
Prepared by: Nancy Palacios
NOTE: Soil samples are discarded 60 days after results are reported unless other arrangements are made (Water samples are 30 days). Hazardous samples will be returned to client or disposed of at client expense.
1803D39-001C 217004 INFLOW 3/22/2018 14:00 5 daysWater E300.1 (Inorganic Anions) <Bromide, Chloride, Fluoride, Nitrate & Nitrite as N, Nitrate as N, Nitrate as NO3¯, Nitrite as N, Nitrite as NO2¯, ortho-Phosphate as P, ortho-Phosphate as PO4, Sulfate>
1803D39-002C 217004 OUTFLOW 3/22/2018 17:00 5 daysWater E300.1 (Inorganic Anions) <Bromide, Chloride, Fluoride, Nitrate & Nitrite as N, Nitrate as N, Nitrate as NO3¯, Nitrite as N, Nitrite as NO2¯, ortho-Phosphate as P, ortho-Phosphate as PO4, Sulfate>
1803D39-003C 217004 SLOUGH 3/22/2018 17:45 5 daysWater E300.1 (Inorganic Anions) <Bromide, Chloride, Fluoride, Nitrate & Nitrite as N, Nitrate as N, Nitrate as NO3¯, Nitrite as N, Nitrite as NO2¯, ortho-Phosphate as P, ortho-Phosphate as PO4, Sulfate>
C1803D39-001 Water 3/22/2018 14:00217004 INFLOW A D B F G EC1803D39-002 Water 3/22/2018 17:00217004 OUTFLOW A D B F G EC1803D39-003 Water 3/22/2018 17:45217004 SLOUGH A D B F G E
Prepared by: Nancy Palacios
NOTE: Soil samples are discarded 60 days after results are reported unless other arrangements are made (Water samples are 30 days). Hazardous samples will be returned to client or disposed of at client expense.
1803D39-001C 217004 INFLOW 3/22/2018 14:00 5 daysWater E300.1 (Inorganic Anions) <Bromide, Chloride, Fluoride, Nitrate & Nitrite as N, Nitrate as N, Nitrate as NO3¯, Nitrite as N, Nitrite as NO2¯, ortho-Phosphate as P, ortho-Phosphate as PO4, Sulfate>
1803D39-002C 217004 OUTFLOW 3/22/2018 17:00 5 daysWater E300.1 (Inorganic Anions) <Bromide, Chloride, Fluoride, Nitrate & Nitrite as N, Nitrate as N, Nitrate as NO3¯, Nitrite as N, Nitrite as NO2¯, ortho-Phosphate as P, ortho-Phosphate as PO4, Sulfate>
1803D39-003C 217004 SLOUGH 3/22/2018 17:45 5 daysWater E300.1 (Inorganic Anions) <Bromide, Chloride, Fluoride, Nitrate & Nitrite as N, Nitrate as N, Nitrate as NO3¯, Nitrite as N, Nitrite as NO2¯, ortho-Phosphate as P, ortho-Phosphate as PO4, Sulfate>